President Obama is a left wing radical and un-American. And although Romney is of the same hypocrisy
of his opponent, he is by no means as consistent with his convictions and agenda
as Obama is with his. Mr. Obama is a capable man of superior conviction, which is why
the prospect of the President having four more years to implement his ideology
is a dreadful thought for many Americans, including myself. That is precisely why
most evangelicals will vote for Romney this November. Their vote will be
against Obama; not for Romney per se.
It is remarkable to me that the preponderance of evangelicals
believe in toto that voting for Obama
is unconscionable and that to vote other than for Romney is foolish. Such sentiment is often predicated upon the
opinion that President Obama is more opposed to the principles of liberty upon which this
country was founded. Accordingly, a vote for Romney is a vote against more
extreme socialism, or even worse. Voting is thought to be a matter that pertains
to policy considerations only. One’s religious convictions, for instance, have
little importance in the matter. But didn’t the evangelical community, just
fourteen years ago, find President Clinton’s personal life politically
relevant, if not on par with policy? In fact, didn’t some posit causality between
personal life and political practice? After all, weren’t evangelicals asking how
a man who could not remain faithful to his wife possibly govern our nation? Well, where are these sorts of questions today
where presidential candidate Mitt Romney is concerned?
Mitt Romney is a heretic and until he renounces the Mormon
cult he remains one and consequently under the unambiguous anathema of
Scripture. If only Mr. Romney were irreligious, but he’s not. He is a poster
child for Mormonism. Should that come into one's thinking with respect to how one casts his vote? Or
does the pluralism of American religious liberty somehow constrain evangelical
Christians not to consider the theological ideologies of a candidate?
In many ways evangelicals are more American than they are
Christian. Decisions are predicated upon a perceived American quality of life and temporal
things (even blessings) that will pass away, rather than the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. My point is not that Scripture demands a vote for this or that candidate, but rather that the principles of Scripture are to inform our thinking. My convictions prohibit me from voting for one who unashamedly believes the Lord to be a created being and spiritual brother to Satan. Don’t get me wrong. In this election I am not terribly concerned whether evangelicals vote right, left or not at all. I am more concerned about the rationale behind one’s decision. More specifically, my concern is that among most evangelicals I find little or no consideration given to any other option other than voting for Mitt Romney. The very notion of voting for Obama so that the damnable heresies of a cult do not become more normative in the United States is not on the average evangelical’s radar screen; it's not a minor consideration. And although I will not vote for Obama, I would actually delight in knowing that some Republican-evangelicals voted for Obama because the thought of having a Mormon president along with the possible ramifications of such an outcome is too repulsive to imagine. That I could support more than a mindless vote for Romney - a vote without any consideration of his spiritual condition and what that might entail.
Those who will hold their nose while pulling the lever for Mitt Romney in November, I hope do so in an effort to suppress the stench of his heretical convictions more than the odor of his moderate polices. The latter pales in comparison to the former.
I believe there is Christian liberty to vote for either candidate, or just sit it out. My position should be apparent.
A non-vote is a vote for Obama.
ReplyDeleteThat’s a common sentiment but it’s based upon a fallacy. During the last presidential election, if a person who was intending to vote for Obama was prohibited by traffic on the freeway, he would have not voted. Would that non-vote have been a vote for Obama? Obviously not, for nothing would have been gained by Obama. In fact, something would have been lost - the vote of the hindered voter. Now if you say that the non-vote would have been a vote for McCain, then in a sense you’d be right, but you would have to base that assertion on the intention of the voter. McCain would have gained something by the traffic-providence, so the hindrance of an Obama voter to vote would have closed the gap of the race by one vote in favor of McCain. The point should be becoming apparent. For a non-vote in this election to be regarded as vote for Obama would presuppose that the person not voting would have voted for Romney if he could, but that’s obviously false because the person in view who would not be voting would have had no intention of voting for Romney. Otherwise he’d intend to vote for him! When the voter’s will and not some external providence prevents a person from voting, it is mathematically absurd and philosophically fallacious to claim that the non-vote was cast in any direction.
ReplyDeleteWould you mind commenting on whether there is anything to be learned here from the time of Elijah, in terms of the period when the people of God became numb to the Baal worship going on in the land?
ReplyDeleteRepublicans think as though God is more offended by Marxism than blasphemy. That's if they give any weight whatsoever to God's opinion.
ReplyDeleteYup, conservatives are swimming out into unchartered waters voting for someone whose creed is anti-Christ. These are unprecedented times. As you say, it's as though King Jesus doesn't distinguish between one depraved man whose unbelief manifests itself in political oppression and another whose radical depravity would lead him to confess unspeakable things about the Lord.
ReplyDeleteBoth are heretics it seems to me. I think it's a choice between the lessor of two evils: the incumbent blatantly opposes our moral values, imposes Marxist economic theory, and retards our national defense. Any improvement is welcomed.
ReplyDeleteToo many of our fellow citizens are sprinting towards Gomorrah, so in the long run, a different chief magistrate cannot save the republic. What we could really use is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit; 5,000 orthodox churches planted; and a return to the gold standard (hee hee).
The only question then is Romney really an improvement that makes a sustainable difference, or is it just more of the same. We’ve been trying to plug holes in a ship for too many years and look what’s it gotten us, a choice between what you believe are two heretics. Imagine if all the evangelicals in this country of ours sat this one out so not to encourage such awful options as Romney in the future? I believe that to be the best option, a non-vote, which if done by all Christians would translate into a very clear message to the GOP: This is unacceptable. Bring us someone better – much better!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteGood points; however, looking back, did the voters have better choices (except for 1964, 1980 and 1984)?
2008: Marxist vs. Big Gov't GOPer
2004: Leftist vs. Big Gov't GOPer (Kerry/Bush)
2000: Leftist vs. Big Gov't GOPer (Gore/Bush)
1996: Leftist vs. Big Gov't GOPer (Clinton/Dole)
1992: Leftist vs. Big Gov't GOPer (Clinton/Bush)
1988: Leftist vs. Big Gov't GOPer (Dukasis/Bush)
1984: Leftist vs. Good GOPer (Mondale/Reagan)
1980: Leftist vs. Good GOPer (Carter/Reagan)
1976: Leftist vs. Big Gov't GOPer (Carter/Ford)
1972: Leftist vs. Big Gov't GOPer (McGovern/Nixon)
1968: Leftist vs. Big Gov't GOPer (Humphrey/Nixon)
1964: Leftist vs. Small Gov't GOPer (Johnson/Goldwater)
ReplyDeleteNo, we didn't in my estimation. To my point...Imagine how things might have, so to speak, had Christians refrained from encouraging anything less than a RR? Better late than never for me. I'm done plugging holes. I will have no less than a new shiny ship. :)
Saved round:
ReplyDeleteIf all the "evangelicals" (orthodox Christians, I presume?) didn't vote in November 2012, it wouldn't make much difference: frankly, there aren't enough born again conservative people in this country to sway an election because too many so-called Christians (mainline protestants, Anabaptist evangelicals, Roman Catholics, et cetera) vote Democrat.
For clarification's sake, I don't consider myself evangelical: the word today includes Rev. Warren, Rev. Osteen, Rev. Paula White, ad nauseam. I prefer Reformed.
I have a different take on that. It seems to me that you would judge a man’s salvation (calling them "so-called Christians") based upon how he votes. Whereas elders are to base such an assessment on biblically informed view of faith and practice. Specifically, we must evaluate whether the confession evidences salvation plus whether there is anything in practice that would undermine it. Note well, elder boards / sessions aren’t even to wait for corroborating evidence in lifestyle, but rather only evaluate whether there is contrary evidence. The judgment of charity leans in favor of salvation; sessions should only consider negative evidence. By way of application, I don’t find enough in these candidates that allow me to question one’s salvation regardless of how one’s vote is cast. At best, that would be a matter of sanctification. We might say that 1st century Corinth and the province of Galatia serve as minimal standards for what must be considered a credible profession of faith. :)
ReplyDeleteOn the other matter... you are an evangelical. It's a set sub-set thing. You're a mammal too. Don’t give up a good word like "evangelical" because of association. You’ll be saying you’re not American too by those strictures.
Agree with the article 100%.
ReplyDeleteJust curious: why was it posted after the nomination wars, and not during?
A 3rd party vote would be preferred over a non-vote. It is time for another party to rise up against the 2 we have now. These 2 seem to be getting more like each other every year, or possibly both drifting more left every year. I do not fully agree with all things Libertarian, but they may have more chance becoming a major party than the other ones that have been around for awhile. It is not likely that a Christian can ever fully agree with any candidate, but I think we should accept the least of 3 evils, rather than the least of 2 evils.
ReplyDeleteReligious pluralism, maybe that's the underlying problem. Do you think God would tolerate for long elevating a gross violation of the 1st commandment to a civil liberty? Can something sinful ever be a liberty sanctioned by the magistrate? But the modern Presbyterian can ease his conscience by appealing to his changed confession ch23. Of course the 17th century Presby would be rolling over in his grave and going for his rod of excommunication. The lesser of 2 evils, how pathetic. How far we have fallen.
ReplyDeleteTim
ReplyDeleteYes, a third party vote is under good regulation me thinks.
Person after Tim,
You wrote: "Do you think God would tolerate for long elevating a gross violation of the 1st commandment to a civil liberty? Can something sinful ever be a liberty sanctioned by the magistrate."
I agree with what I believe you are trying to say. Indeed, blasphemy should be a crime. However, the rest you said needs some refinement I think. God would have us legistlate laws that grant liberty for certain sins. Not all sins should be crimes, in other words. That God doesn't grant us permission to sin does not imply that no sin should be a civil liberty.
I forgot to add my name, it is Tom. As a refinement I would add that even though all sins are not to be punished as crimes by the magistrate, God has not given us the right to commit sin. Something sinful can never be the basis of a "civil right". For instance, to think in an atheistic way is sinful, and I have no right before God to think that way, the magistrate would have no authority to punish me for my thinking (if he could find that out somehow), but the moment I publish a book extolling and making the case for atheism thus propagating such a view, the magistrate could now act. I believe the U.S. Constitution to be anti-Christian for this reason. It elevates the practice of polytheism to a civil right. As a believer that the original WCF ch23 was biblical, and considering the historical context in which it was written I can not as a matter of obedience vote for a person who blasphemes Christ and swears an oath to uphold an anti-Christian Constitution (3rd commandment violation).
ReplyDeleteTim
ReplyDeleteCan you vote for a credible Christian who would vow to uphold the Constitution yet agreed that it is pluralistic?
Excuse me . I meant Tom. Sorry Tom.
DeleteGreat article. I've written something similar looking at Biblical principles for candidate support and applying it to Romney V. Obama specifically. I'd love your feedback on it if you have time. Thanks.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.everygoodpath.net/How-Christians-Should-Vote-2012-Election
Thanks for your comments on my article. I made a short reply there and added a link to your excellent article, as I think it will help Christians think rightly about the issue.
ReplyDeleteAgree with the article 100%.
ReplyDeleteJust curious: why was it posted after the nomination wars, and not during?
For some reason that post was hung up in the spam folder awaiting moderation.
To the question, I suppose it didn't occur to me until recently how much evangelicals have placed their hope in this country - so much so that they'd support a Mormon without any consideration of how bad that could be for the country they so desire to protect.
I realize the church nodded off long ago on what God thinks of such false religions, but what has struck me most is that evangelicals cannot imagine not voting for the GOP candidate. I suppose if Romney was a Democrat and an evangelical he'd stand less chance of getting the vote of most conservative evangelicals, but since he's Republican he'll get their vote even in spite of his spirtual blindness and God's apparent hatred toward him
I agree with this article and was actually writing an article on this very subject, so I'm ecstatic that someone else has said this as well!
ReplyDeleteRomney's Mormonism is no laughing matter, and in fact the real issue on the table, and his stance on abortion (i.e. allows abortion for "health of the mother", a code word for abortion for many reasons) is not to far behind Obama. What most don't know is that Romney's pro-abortion stance is taken directly from the official LDS position on abortion.
Are conservatives really swimming out into uncharted waters by voting for someone who denies the deity of Christ? The 3rd President of the U.S., Thomas Jefferson, was a Deist. He denied the divinity of Christ and even cut out the passages in the Bible that referred to Jesus as God's Son.
ReplyDeleteJefferson was member in good standing of the Anglican Church and even served on the local vestry. Can we say the same of Romney? He also gave of his money to several churches and Christian causes. He defended the Bible as inspired and Jesus as the prophesied Christ e.g. he signed a document in 1804: October 18, year of our Lord Christ, 1804. (emphasis mine)
ReplyDeleteThe refabricated Bible to which you refer was an abridged work aimed to evangelize the American Indians, which is consistent with his “Notes on Religion” (nine documents from 1776). The remains of the abridgment, which was akin to our modern day NT, Psalms and Proverbs versions, is the “Table of Texts” and it references Christ’s healings, which undermines another fabricated claim. That's all we have on that matter, which is not very informative regarding his orthodoxy or lack thereof.
It wasn’t until after his political career (1813) did he formally reject the deity of Christ, but as president he signed legislation that put ministers on the payroll and actually invoked punishment for blasphemous military servants. Romney, a blashphemer, would not have qualified for the military.
Here's the material point:
In the final analyses, Americans were not culpable of voting for anything like Romney, but rather a professing Christian who in the end committed apostasy, showing himself to have been an hypocrite. Yet regardless of your view of history, here is the difference between then and today and why these waters are indeed unchartered. In the end Jefferson proved himself not to have received special revelation, Scripture. Whereas Mitt Romney NOW, not only formally rejects revelation but has received a "revelation" from one of Satan's messengers, Joseph Smith, and even worked as a missionary in France for the cause of that Satanic gospel he confuses with God's word. (It even got him out of the draft for the Vietnam war, a minor point in comparison I grant you).
Jefferson did not hear the voice of God. Whereas Romney mistakes Satan's voice for God's.
Jefferson was a Protestant and prior to evangelicalism would have been considered a Christian by all especially when in office. Trinitarian baptism and member in good standing of a true church qualifies him.
ReplyDeleteOk, well, guess I need to brush up on my history . . .
ReplyDeleteLeanna,
ReplyDeleteDon't turn your back like that. :)
My issue is not so much with your interpretation of history but rather the distinction I think you are missing. There is a world of difference between someone who would deny Scripture (like Jefferson proved to do) and one who twists Scripture in order to make it conform to heretical teachings. On your view of history, Jefferson tore out pages of Scripture because he rejected what they taught. Fine. Let's even say he did that while in office. Romney, on the other hand, reinterprets passages of Scripture in order to make them conform to the heretical teachings of the Book of Mormon. At cardinal doctrines he lies about what the Scripture teaches. He doesn't deny Scripture, he twists it like the devil. I hope you see the difference.
Blessings,
R.A.
Yes, I do. Thanks for taking the time to explain. I must admit, I thought I knew where I stood on this whole issue before I started reading your posts and doing some additional study . . . now I'm just not sure. But thanks for your thoughts. Gives me a lot to consider.
ReplyDeletePray for wisdom, Sister.
ReplyDeleteThanks for being such an encouragement. Your humility speaks well of your profession.
In His grace,
Ron
There certainly is Christian liberty. We are not voting for pope or pastor, but a glorified dogcatcher.
ReplyDelete"Mitt Romney is a heretic." Yep - a part of a crude, blasphemous, antichristian cult. At least it's out in the open.
No one should vote w/o thinking through all the issues and ramifications. Sitting this one out, voting Paul, Mittens, or Barry O. is one's Christian (& American) liberty.
One rationale is that while the Dems are running the train toward the cliff @ 100mph, and the GOP @ 80mph, and perhaps some other may truly be wanting to turn the train around, the reality is that one of the two major candidates must in all likelihood win in November. Slowing the Republicrat train is an option.
"Love God and do what you want." ~ St Augustine.
Perhaps, in light of what history has taught us regarding the mixing of politics and religion, that it would be best if we left magical thinking out of the equation and deal simply with known facts when deciding on a direction for our country. Romney believes in witches. One cannot be a Mormon without admitting to their existence. We quit burning witches in the last couple of centuries because we realized the folly of doing such. Maybe it's time to admit the folly of thinking that some omniscient being also happens to be a Democrat or a Republican and that such a being is wholly invested in our football games, and our wars.
ReplyDeleteThe problem isn't mixing religion and politics. The problem is not mixing the correct religion with politics. All political decisions are moral.
ReplyDeleteWell, Reformed Apologist, I guess you can be delighted: my wife and I both voted for Obama (though there is obviously much with which we disagreed in his platform) because the thought of a Mormon president sickened us so intensely. Note as well that we also knew of Romney's support for abortion and gay marriage (and his many backflips, depending on the demographics of his audience, on these issues). We, BTW, do not consider ourselves evangelical; we are reformed. And I am a registered republican. Looking at the election and the fact that exit polls show 4 out of 5 white evangelicals voted for Romney, I just shake my head. 4 out of 5 voting for a blasphemer? Really? How sad.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI greatly appreciate that you would hold your nose and vote against Romney by casting your vote in the opposite direction, for Obama. As I said from the outset, my concern is not how one votes but rather the rationale behind the vote. I can appreciate yours. I can even respectfully disagree with a biblically based vote for Romney. Unfortunately, the reasons I've been given by Christians for why a vote for Romney was in order have been secularly informed. Again, rationale is paramount. I couldn't bring myself to vote for either but I'm delighted Romney lost.
You are an evangelical if you are Reformed. It's a set-subset thing. :) In any case, I would imagine that a greater percentage of Reformed folks voted for Romney than non-Reformed evangelicals did.
Romney was born into a Mormon family just as many of us were born into Christian families. To call him a blasphemer is in itself profoundly unfair. He is not a Priest, he was running for the Presidency and his views on social and economic and his world view mirrors that of most evangelicals or reformed as you want to be called. We think his religion is false, is heretical, is in error but he learned it for 65 years. Its in his DNA.Is he unintelligent because he believes it? Do we like being called fools for believing in the Christian fairy tale so to speak. Romney would have made a great President and to deny him because he is a Mormon is grossly narrow
ReplyDeleteYou write: “ To call him a blasphemer is in itself profoundly unfair. You also write: “We think his religion is false, is heretical…”
ReplyDeleteTo profess one’s “heretical” beliefs is to blaspheme by definition. Romney (since being a missionary evangelist for Mormonism) still professes his “heretical” beliefs, which makes him a blasphemer - by definition. That he hasn’t done so in your hearing is irrelevant.
“Its in his DNA.”
No it’s not. It’s a learned belief he professes.
“Is he unintelligent because he believes it?”
Is it “intelligent” to follow dead con-man (Joseph Smith)? Notwithstanding, the polemic has nothing to do with IQ.
“Do we like being called fools for believing in the Christian fairy tale so to speak.”
We don’t believe in fairy tales; yet although we don’t like being called fools for believing the truth of Christ and his finished work upon the cross, we are to count it all a joy.
You need to learn the definition of HERETIC. Romney is uninformed, he is not a heretic. We should pray for him that he discovers Jesus or in your case that Jesus makes him elect. Heretic is way too strong for a man , not a theologian not a teacher not anyone who is proselytizing. Loosen up on the language please. He is a good and decent man who grew up as a Mormon. Would you populate the entire city of say Detroit with Mormons who obey the church or what we have now. Would you have the influence of Maslow and Bertrand Russell and Carl Sagan on this earth or a Romney. Give us a break.
ReplyDeleteYou need to learn the definition of HERETIC.
ReplyDeleteBy definition he is a heretic.
Romney is uninformed
Maybe he's also uninformed. I'll take your word for it if it will help you discuss what constitutes heresy.
Heretic is way too strong for a man , not a theologian not a teacher not anyone who is proselytizing.
I guess you need to learn the definition of heretic.
Look up the definition of heretic. It is someone who dissents from traditional views and not even religious ones. Galileo was a heretic. More importantly you don't want to answer the question of whether you would prefer Detroit or this country for that matter to be populated by Mormons or Secularists who disavow God and indulge in the pernicious lie of man being just a cosmic mass of matter. There is no incrementalism in you. Everything is black or white and its always reformed and monergistic and hyper Calvinist and it allows no room for anyone else. We can disagree with Mormonism and I do but I don't bash the man because he holds views different than mine any more than I don't call Piper or you or Sproul or Driscoll or any of you heretics because I don't believe in reformed replacement theology. You can say they teach error but they are not heretics and neither are you. Would Wesley call you a heretic, Would Stanley or Billy Graham. Would Macarthur be a heretic because he is a dispensationalist? Romney is a decent man and he wouldn't ruin the country the way Obama has. He actually puts most evangelistic Christians to shame in his faith walk even though I do not agree with his theology. He is not my pastor or my mentor and he doesn't inform my Christian walk.
ReplyDeleteI’m afraid you are a very angry and confused individual who has little intellectual integrity. For instance, your previous diatribe to this one had to do with the religious connotation of heretic. You claimed he wasn't one on implicit religious grounds. When you looked up the definition and found that Romney actually is one, you proceeded to raise a red herring, pretending that your concern over the use of "heretic" is that Romney is not one who dissents from traditional views and that the term doesn't apply to religious matters. How desperate are you anyway?
ReplyDeleteThe reason I haven’t dealt with the rest of your ramblings is because they’re chocked full of fallacies that obviously you don’t recognize. Or maybe you're just not concerned with behaving so foolishly and irrationally.
You have this guy's number R.A. He does not even distinguish Mormonism from Trinitarian Christianity. What he also does not grasp is that all the Christians he mentioned *would* call Romney a heretic. What a joker!
ReplyDeleteI have on several occasions told you that Mormonism is heretical. That does not make Romney a heretic. Then you go ad hominem and mention my anger. You don't know how to respond but simply mention my irrational fallacies which is a cheap trick. I ask you one last time when you look at the pathology of this country for example. Would you prefer that it be populated by god loving Mormons and their attendant values and behavior or what we see now? I found no such definition of heretic and would ask you to look it up. Your real temperament is now showing through as you use words like diatribe and foolishly and irrational and don't even clearly read my text since I said ''heretic doesnt ONLY apply to religion"". No Mr Ron I now see you as a controller par excellence and your family is afraid of you and nothing gets done without your confirmation. It is absolutely fine to have conviction but you attack when pressed but you are elusive and obfuscate whenever you can and you believe its rigor. It is not.
ReplyDelete"clearly read my text since I said ''heretic doesnt ONLY apply to religion"
ReplyDeleteNope, that's not what you said. You said "It is someone who dissents from traditional views and not even religious ones."
Sounds as though now you mean "not only religious ones," but you wrote "not even religious ones."
Your fallacies are would you prefer this than that, which doesn't get to the complexity of the matter.
Now my family is afraid of me? You really are a troubled, sinful soul and now a censured one too.
Bye
Awe man don't cut him off yet. He is a great form of entertainment for me these days!!! What will I do now? :)Seriously though,I was hoping to see whether he was going to define a heretic the third time around as someone who is a social deviant AND a religious one! Clueless or what?
ReplyDeleteIt amuses me that he says you define things so very "narrowly." I have been all over your blog for a couple of years now and I have never seen anything defined narrowly. Are you specific? YES Do you refute other views? YES I can only wonder what he means by "incrementalism" and "black and white." Obviously he wants to include Mormonism in the grey area of non heretical views. I cannot even imagine what a guy like this would consider heretical. Voodoo maybe? Ironically this guy is a Calvinistic *HATER* but he has no argument against Calvinism I bet.
He is Romney Republican first and foremost. I've seen these types before. Ironically he seems pretty black and white on his political views but his Christianity is a bumper sticker mentality of tolerance.
The more I write the more I realize you should have cut him off.
Cheers,
Jon
R.A.
ReplyDeleteYou were nothing but respectful to this very sad person. I have my own sin to worry about but just the same I would not want to answer to God for all his violations of the Ninth Commandment. Shake the dust off your sandals and move on!
What is even doubly unfortunate is that this person is way outside the Christian tradition regarding Romney being a heretic. Of course he is a heretic. What evangelical or Catholic doesn't know that one? He rejects the Nicene Creed for goodness sake. More than that is since when were heretics limited to the clergy as this person suggests? Most heretics from the Scripture's perspective are not pastors at all but lay people. Even if this person was right that only pastors can be heretics, I bet he doesn't realize that Romney was a Bishop in the Mormon cult and went to France spreading the Mormon Cult door to door.
I should have pushed "Preview" but I pushed Publish Your Comment" so sorry for the second comment.
ReplyDeleteOnly God knows how much we were spared by not legitimizing Mormonism with a President with a handsome family and all the rest. I hate the idea of Obama in office but Obama does not represent any religious bent other than maybe "irreligious." There was zero risk of him promoting a cult that God hates. This person that wrote you is obviously more concerned with Detroit's economy and his pocket book than anything else.
Racheal. I know all about Romney and I know him and I pray for him and I pray that they would become believers. The religion is heretical and yes when he was a student he went out for two years and did service for the church. something most evangelicals don't do.I pray he recognizes Jesus as his savior but I also pray he doesn't become a hypercalvinist as is this apologist who believes most of us are just crap out of luck because God preordained a few a very few for heaven and most for hell. that is heretical if we are going to be so loose with the word. I believe Catholicism is a cult but I do not believe my good neighbor who goes to Catholic church is a heretic. That's where we differ. Obama is ruining our country and you believe that Romney would do worse is laughable on its face.
ReplyDeleteJon,
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by and for your comments. I did get another post that was pretty much the same as the previous ones.
Cheers
Rachael,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your thoughts. To imagine that a professing Christian would not consider the boundaries of the Trinitarian creeds as defining heresy is a bit passing strange. In another sense it's quite understandable given how "independent" the church is today. 4th century Christianity is passe.
Surely, all one has to do is Google Romney / Heretic to see that this is hardly a contested point among Christians and Roman Catholics.
It's a shame that this person had no interest in interacting with the substance of my three posts on this matter. But as you say, he had another agenda that was far from discussing Scripture etc.
Kinda reminds me of a person who wrote me because an elder's wife contributed to Biden's campaign. This man thought that act disqualified the elder from office. I wouldn't support Biden for any reason imaginable, but this person put his politics ahead of God's word on the qualifications for the office of elder. So, to your point, the economy is more important to this person than anything else.
Excuse me - Racheal.
ReplyDeleteReformed Apologist,
ReplyDeleteThat is quite OK. It happens all the time! :)
Since I posted twice before when it should have been once. I will conserve posts and write to your accuser.
Anonymous,
Do you make a distinction between “hyper Calvinist” and “Calvinist”? You called Reformed Apologist a “hyper C” but that has a distinct meaning I believe and it is not the same thing as Calvinist. No matter just curious.
You are wrong about Catholicism being a cult. If it was a cult then that would mean all Catholics are heretics by definition. So I think you are wrong on a bunch of things there (too). Maybe check out a cult ministry. No Protestants define the Catholic church that way.
Back to Calvinism for a quick second and then I am done. Calvinism is not heresy in any Christian’s mind other than some weird fundamentalists that are uneducated about doctrine. Once again you are way off track. Don’t you know that Calvinism is the belief system of the Protestant Reformation? Calvinism goes way back, Sir, to a time that precedes even the Reformation. Ever hear of Saint Augustine? Did you know that most of the great missionaries in the church were Calvinists? Baptists were even Calvinists.
Another thing, Sir… This idea that if God doesn’t choose you you are out of luck is just ridiculous. The only way anyone can be saved is if God chooses them. You act as though God is keeping people who want to be saved from being saved by not electing them. The only reason anyone comes to Jesus is because they are chosen. If you hate Calvinism then I fear for your soul. Calvinism is not the gospel but it is dangerous to hate truth that is so close and intertwined with the gospel.
The last think I will say to you is I agree with Reformed Apologist’s earlier comment. You are an angry person. I feel sorry for you. You are not just rude. You do not know what you are talking about. All you care about is the economy and you have no idea how bad things would have gotten if we elected a heretic. You could care less about putting God to the test it looks like to me. Do not get me wrong. I think people were allowed to vote for Romney but you have no respect for thoughtful Christian reasons for having not voted for him.
Please do not address me anymore.
Racheal,
ReplyDeleteI will not publish another post of his.
Thanks for yours though.
R.A.
ReplyDeleteThis guy is obsessive; a control freak; ignorant about religion; ignorant about Calvinism; ignorant about heresy... cut your losses. He is a troll on blogs no doubt.
Anonymous stated: “I have on several occasions told you that Mormonism is heretical. That does not make Romney a heretic.”
ReplyDeleteLet’s take a closer look at that statement in light of some basic truths.
1. “A person believing in or practicing religious heresy is a heretic.” (Definition of heretic)
2. Mormonism is religious heresy (as Anonymous states: “I have on several occasions told you that Mormonism is heretical.”)
3. Therefore, a person who believes in or practices Mormonism is a heretic. (laws of logic)
4. Romney practices Mormonism (Anonymous agrees)
5.Therefore, Romney is a heretic. (from 3 and 4)
Wrong theology is a huge issue. It can keep you out of heaven. And there are definitely cases in which it should keep you out of the White House–for instance, if your theology teaches that we should sacrifice infants. In that case, your theology is producing values that are inappropriate for a president. But in Gov. Romney’s case, his Mormonism pushes him in the right direction, toward the very values evangelicals espouse. And the God I serve is more than powerful enough to use a man whose theology may be off, just as he did with Thomas Jefferson–and just as he did with Cyrus in Old Testament times. So I’d answer your question with a question: How can a Bible-believing Christian believe it’s up to us to deliver presidents God can use?
ReplyDeleteWhoever you are,
ReplyDeleteAside from your wrong interpretation of Jefferson, herein lies the issue. Does electing an overt blasphemer invoke God's displeasure (not to mention his fury)?
Secondly, your observation that God is "big enough" to overcome a man's bad theology seems to ignore the flip-side of that same premise, that God is also big enough to overcome the socialism of the existing president through many resources at His sovereign disposal. So, enough of that sort of prejudiced question begging, OK?
Our task is to obey by faith those dvine precepts that we strive to infer from Scripture.
As I blogged here:
ReplyDeletehttp://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2012/08/more-on-romney-and-muddled-thinking.html
1. Many will vote for Romney as the lesser of evils because Obama, they believe, will run our country into the ground in the next four years. As far as the outcome of the election is concerned, I have it on good authority, the testimony of redemptive history, that the legitimizing of blasphemy has precedence for economic consequences and social turmoil, more than anything that might result from Obama-care and all the rest. That is something that should be considered by those who would make this election a matter of economics and social concern. Pragmatism would seem to side with not voting for Romney, especially given his moderate tendencies that in principle are no different, just less consistent, than Obama's.
1a. It hasn’t occurred to many that the spiritual decay of this land has paved the way for the social decay we now find normal. Fixing our economic thinking and all the rest is a mere band aid at best. At the heart of the problem is the question, How might we provide a climate in which God is honored given the current state of affairs? Do we seek God's good pleasure by voting for Romney? Do we say no to a heretical, blaspheming candidate, or do we elect him as the savior of this land? Enough is enough, but unfortunately the conservative media and the GOP leadership have evangelicals so scared of Obama that the masses would sooner support a cult leader with the hope of him getting us out of the jam that spiritual infidelity got us into in the first place. The irony is killing me.
2. People are quick to claim the sovereignty of God and divine election as reason not to be terribly concerned with an attack on the gospel, but not so willing to take such a fatalistic, hyper-Calvinistic approach when dealing with socialistic / economic concerns. In other words, many think as though God will take care of protecting the elect but we humans must fight against the evils of social agendas that are un-American. What is obviously skewed in such thinking is the fact that God no less decrees salvation than he does societal decay. So any appeal to divine sovereignty begs the question of where one’s efforts and priorities should be.
And then this from here: http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2012/09/romney-another-jefferson.html
I've heard in the past week people trying to equate the Romney-scenario to that of President Thomas Jefferson, also a non-Christian. A few comments might be in order (and more are in the coms-box two posts ago). Jefferson was not a cult leader. And although he showed himself in the end to be apostate - Thomas Jefferson did not mistake Satan's voice for Christ's. That is the material point.
Mitt Romney not only rejects Christ's testimony of himself; he confuses Satan's testimony for it. When the presidential candidate reads the writings of false prophet Joseph Smith, Romney believes he is hearing the word of the Lord.
The point stands. These are indeed unchartered waters, completely unprecedented in the history of the United States.
Well if you are a divine determinist and I do not know that you are then I understand your point. If you believe that god decreed societal decay rather than allowed it then we have nothing to talk about. Then Romney was preordained by unconditional election to be an apostate and he cannot help himself. If there is no free will then I understand. Why worry about an election then, why vote, Let God sort it out. Don't worry about terror since God in his sovereignty causes it. We know God punished the Israelites for their disobedience and he might be using jihadists to punish us for our disobedience. If its sovereignty all the time and all has been decreed we can do nothing.
ReplyDeleteEven Arminians even believed that God "decrees" whatsoever comes to pass.
ReplyDeleteYou have a will, now tell how it is "free." By "free" just don't define the will but tell me how it can choose contrary to your strongest inclination at the moment of choice, which is not a chosen inclination lest you have an infinite regress of choices and intentions for any given choice. What is metaphysical pure contingency? What does it mean to be able to choose contrary to how God knows we will choose? If it was true yesterday that you would write this recent post today, then the post was as necessary as the past is necessary since the truth about the futre post existed in the past. So much for "free will."
Lastly, you want to index moral accountabilty to something that doesn't exist, namely metaphysical contingency. You would have choices coming from anything but that which is rational and intentional. It's called chaos what your positing as necessary for accountabilty. IOW, free will doesn't save responsibilty; it would destroy it.
The Calvinistic doctrine of divine providence, drawing upon the writings of Zwingli, Calvin, Edwards, R. C. Sproul, Boettner, Helm, and Piper and others. I find a common overall model in their works: God is meticulously sovereign in that “everything down to the minutest details of history and individual lives, including persons’ thoughts and actions, are foreordained and rendered certain by God. Even evil thoughts and actions are planned and brought about such that God ‘sees to it’ that they happen to carry out his will. Nothing at all, whatever, falls outside God’s predestining plan and activity. What I see in all these writers is a belief in divine determinism, even though some Calvinists eschew that designation because they understand “determinism” to entail external coercion, which Calvinists consistently deny, because of their soft-deterministic (or compatibilist) understanding.
ReplyDeleteWhile recognizing that “high Calvinists” consistently affirm the meticulous providence of God there are differences among them in the way they speak of this. Differences, for instance, about whether or not God coerces the wicked to do evil acts and whether or not God merely permits evil.Calvin objects to the language of permission because “even the evil done by wicked people is foreordained and rendered certain by God”. In Edwards, I hear so determined a sovereignty that even God’s own decisions are necessitated or “determined by his own infinite, all-sufficient wisdom in everything”( Freedom of the Will). Even God’s freedom is soft-determined rather than libertarian, so that he could not have done otherwise than he did.
Where are you on this spectrum?
Your summary was not a "spectrum" but rather, as you say, a "model" of which I hold to.
ReplyDeleteI am not an Arminian and it is interesting that the traditional arguments that both sides have usually don't properly define what Calvin nor Arminius really wrote. Calvinists call Arminians semi pelagian or pelagian and they are not. God does not decree whatever comes to pass but he does allow. It would be of no comfort to me to know that the man who raped my daughter did so by a decree from God. Your notion of sovereignty is extreme and you can intellectualize it all you wish but it is a stumbling block to anyone who hears it. but of course why witness if all is preordained.
ReplyDeleteYou're simply uninformed. The Reformed confessions all teach the divine decree, as did Calvin. If you're not a five point Arminian, great. That only makes you an inconsistent Arminian I'm afraid.
ReplyDeleteYou think that God doesn't determine rape? I suppose He didn't decree the crucifixion either - the worst sin every committed. I suppose God’s eternal knowledge of what will occur is based upon looking into the future, which would have made his knowledge predicated upon something outside himself that did not even exist yet. Your view of God makes him anything but omniscient because he must learn what will happen. Sure is a good thing that sinners were willing to call for the crucifixion for without it there would be no salvation. Given your view, the crucifixion was not according to God’s decree but something that He was fortunate enough to have handed to Him so that he might save a people to be the bride of Christ.
Ha! Whenever I hear someone say that Calvinism is "intellectualizing" Scripture it is a sure sign that what is being argued is incoherent. This anti-grace person sounds like the rebel from Romans 9 who faults God for decreeing the man's own sin.
ReplyDeleteNow this guy calls God's sovereignty in salvation a stumbling block? That is pretty telling too since the gospel is a stumbling block for unbelievers! All this stuff is in Romans 9!
This guy's comfort over what I hope is a ficticious example about is daughter is pitiful and not Christian. He would take greater comfort that God did not decree the sin for His own glory and the sake of the elect? He thinks that God can somehow "allow" something that he doesn't also decree. What utter confusion is that?
Of course God decreed the crucifixion--he sent his son. God does not decree all sin. Reasonable people can disagree that omniscience does not mean that god is the author of sin. By all means study theology all you want and have interesting debates and write papers and have blogs and joust with others but don't tell people that God decreed the rape and killing of their daughter and expect them to show any interest in receiving Gods grace. Maybe you really don't believe in evangelizing because everything to you is preordained, but if you want to witness to skeptics and seekers(no one seeketh no not one) then your beliefs will be a stumbling block. Try to read what I say carefully and not make illogical juxtapositions. Jesus had to die for our salvation AND IT WAS DECREED.
ReplyDeleteYou say that God decreed the crucifixion but not all sin. So, God decreed that men would plot, scheme and crucify the Lord. He decreed their sin in other words. Were these men responsible for their sins since God decreed the sins? I trust you'll say yes. So then, God can decree sins while holding men responsible for those sins. They did what they wanted, which is why they are responsible for those choices. When God decreed all the events of history including all the choices in the nexus that ensured the crucifixion, could the men have not done what God knew they would do? So much for their "free will" to act contrary to God's decree, but they did have the liberty to do what they wanted hence their responsibility for the sinful acts.
ReplyDeleteIn the like manner, could you have done contrary to what God knew you would do in writing this morning? Did God decree you write or did he just "allow" it (whatever that might mean to you).
Which acts does God decree and which one does he not decree?
If God knows what you will do, then it must be TRUE that you will do what you will do. Where is the truth of your choices grounded if not in God's determination.
Until you begin reconciling your own theology your posts will not be published. You've said nothing other than you will not have this God as your own. You don't argue. You just assert and contradict yourself.
Thomas,
ReplyDeleteThanks for weighing in. Yes, when they say divine Reformed thought is too logical it's simply code for "I have no answer to Roman's nine."
ReplyDeleteI struggled with this doctrine for a long time before coming around on it. I think it would be helpful for this Arminian to rid himself of terms like "author of sin" and "allows" and to begin challenging his own inconsistencies with a bit more precision. God's sovereignty is a comfort and as RC Sproul said...once you embrace it you see that it is on every page of Scripture. :) Great stuff but God must take off the blinders. Just sayin' :)
CA,
ReplyDeleteI just got another post from this person that was simply more of the same. He's a bit frantic. He did add something new though. He said I didn't deal with the Rape issue. Do you recall anything that I didn't deal with that could be dealt with? :) How does one deal with an unargued assertion other than show the how it's arbitrary and inconsistent? I hope he takes your advice, but as you say God must give the increase.
Ron,
ReplyDeleteI would not waste your time with this kind of guy. Half of them do not go to church and if they do go at all they are all about the rapture and how many chick gospel tracts you handed out that week. What is even sadder is they typically have no fruit in their lives and their families are all a mess. All because they deny the doctrines of grace. Their anti-intellectualism and incoherence is their badge of righteousness.
Rather prophetic you are, Jon. I was asked in another unpublished post how many souls I've led to the Lord. Then he proceeded to rail against the use of theological terms. Very sad indeed.
ReplyDeleteSend me your email again and I won't publish it. I'll shoot you some of this spam I'm getting.
ReplyDeletedon't tell people that God decreed the rape and killing of their daughter and expect them to show any interest in receiving Gods grace.
ReplyDeleteMr.Hyper Arminian,
Let me see if I have this right. We should tell people that God does not plan whatsoever comes to pass so that people might receive the grace of a god who is impotent. Got it. Thanks!
I'm not the other guy. I have two sincere questions.
ReplyDelete1. Why does free will keep God from knowing the future?
2. What do you mean by grounding the truth?
I'm not looking to debate. Just curious about these things.
Thanks
This guy,
ReplyDeleteIn basic terms, free will choices aren’t necessary. They might or might not occur. If something might not occur, then it is not true that it will occur, fair enough? Only truth can be known. Therefore, a free will choice can’t be known in advance because it defies truth given that a free will choice might or might not occur. It can only be known after it occurs.
The grounding objection is that if there is no truth maker for a choice (it’s not grounded anywhere – not determined etc), then nothing provides the truth needed to be known about the choice. The choice cannot be known in advance.
Thoughts?
I just got another post from this person that was simply more of the same. He's a bit frantic. He did add something new though. He said I didn't deal with the Rape issue. Do you recall anything that I didn't deal with that could be dealt with? :)
ReplyDeleteWhy would God's decreeing of rape be any more difficult to accept than His decreeing of adultery? Yet, that's precisely what Scripture teaches!
"Thus says the Lord: 'Behold, I will raise up adversity against you from your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, before the sun.'" (2 Samuel 12:11-12)
Notice that the Lord specifically states, "I will raise up adversity against you," and "I will take your wives and give them to your neighbor," and "I will do this thing before all Israel." He didn't merely "permit" these sins to happen; He directly caused them to happen! He does the same with rape, incest, murder, and mayhem. That's not "hyper" Calvinism; that's the explicit teaching of Scripture. Yet the Lord is in no way guilty of sin or any wrongdoing in all of this. For while the acts themselves are sinful, it is not sinful for God to ordain or cause them to happen. Everything the Lord does is holy and righteous by definition, and He ordains these sins for His own holy and righteous ends. Only the men who committed these evil acts are responsible for sin -- that is, held accountable to God for violating His moral law.